Pending
before the court is Boston Scientific Corp.'s
(“BSC”) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7]. The
plaintiff has responded to the motion [ECF No. 8], making it
ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, BSC's
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.

I.
Background

This
case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use
of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse
and stress urinary incontinence. In the seven MDLs, there are
over 75, 000 cases currently pending, over 15, 000 of which
are in the BSC MDL, MDL 2326. Managing multidistrict
litigation requires the court to streamline certain
litigation procedures in order to improve efficiency for the
parties and the court. Some of these management techniques
simplify the parties' discovery responsibilities.
Pretrial Order (“PTO”) # 16, for example, ensures
that BSC receives the plaintiff-specific information
necessary to defend the cases against it. Under PTO # 16,
each plaintiff in this MDL must submit a Plaintiff Profile
Form (“PPF”) to act as interrogatory answers
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and responses to
requests for production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34. See PTO # 16, No. 2:12-md-2326, entered Oct. 4,
2012 [ECF No. 211]. Each plaintiff must submit a PPF within
60 days of filing a Short Form Complaint. Id. at
¶ 1(b). Failure to do so subjects the plaintiff
“to sanctions, to be determined by the court, upon
motion of the defendants.” Id. ¶ 1(i).
The parties jointly drafted the requirements for PTO # 16,
and I entered it as applicable to every one of the thousands
of cases in this MDL.

Here,
the plaintiff filed her complaint on September 8, 2016, and
her PPF was due to BSC by November 7, 2016. The plaintiff did
not submit a PPF during this time period. Indeed, the
plaintiff did not submit a PPF until BSC filed the instant
motion, making the PPF more than 128 days late. BSC asks the
court to dismiss the plaintiff's case or, alternatively,
sanction the plaintiff a reasonable monetary penalty under
the terms and conditions that the court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff, while admitting that the PPF was untimely,
insists sanctions are not appropriate because the discovery
deficiency was cured and there was no bad faith present.

II.
Legal Standard

Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides that a court may
issue “just orders” when a party fails to provide
or permit discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). In the MDL
world, this authority has particular significance. An MDL
judge bears the “enormous” task of
“mov[ing] thousands of cases toward resolution on the
merits while at the same time respecting their individuality,
” and to carry out this task in a smooth and efficient
manner, the judge must establish and, more importantly,
enforce rules for discovery. In re Phenylpropanolamine
Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir.
2006). Rule 37(b)(2) supplies the tool for this enforcement,
allowing a judge to impose sanctions when a party fails to
comply with the court's discovery orders. See
Id. at 1232 (“[A] willingness to resort to
sanctions, sua sponte if necessary, may ensure compliance
with the [discovery] management program.” (internal
citation omitted)); see also Freeman v. Wyeth, 764
F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2014) (“The MDL judge must be
given ‘greater discretion' to create and enforce
deadlines in order to administrate the litigation
effectively.”).[1]

III.
Discussion

The
circumstances of this case lead me to impose the sanction
provided in Rule 37(b)(2)(C), which requires the disobeying
party to pay “the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, caused by the [discovery] failure,
unless the failure was substantially justified or other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). The plaintiff has not provided
substantial justification for her failure to timely submit to
discovery. Furthermore, there are no circumstances that make
this sanction unjust. Although the discovery violation has
since been cured, it nevertheless resulted in litigation
expenses for BSC. Applying Rule 37(b)(2)(C) ensures that the
disobeying party, rather than the innocent party, bears those
costs. Accordingly, BSC's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in
part in regards to dismissing the plaintiff's claim and
GRANTED in part to the extent that it seeks the payment of
reasonable expenses.

To
bring this Motion to Dismiss, BSC expended time and money
identifying Ms. Bell as one of the non-compliant plaintiffs;
assessing the effect of her discovery violations; drafting a
motion to dismiss or for sanctions; serving the motion; and
replying to the plaintiff's brief in opposition. Based on
my understanding of the economic and administrative realities
of multidistrict litigation, I conclude that a more
representative, though still minimal, valuation of BSC's
expenses, and the proper sanction in this case, is in the
amount of $1000.

IV.
Conclusion

It is
therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff has 30 business days
from the entry of this Order to pay BSC $1000 as minimal
partial compensation for the reasonable expenses caused by
the plaintiff's failure to comply with
discovery.[2] In the event that the plaintiff does not
provide adequate or timely payment, the court will consider
ordering a show-cause hearing in Charleston, West Virginia,
upon motion by the defendants. It is further ORDERED that
BSC's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Finally, it is ORDERED that
plaintiff's counsel send a copy of this Order to the
plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested, and
file a copy of the receipt.

The
court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to
counsel of ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.